FOFOA starts with an interesting 'abstract' that attempts to summarize this essay:
"Money is credit." ...More specifically, it is the recording of current balances of credit. It can be recorded in your head, represented on an institutional ledger, or carried in your pocket as pieces of paper or metal with numbers recorded on them. But notice that it's the recorded numbers and not the paper/metal in your pocket that constitutes the money."

I like this a great deal.

FOFOA immediately moves on to wealth. but his comments are less satisfying: "But you can't possibly understand the pure money concept without also understanding the wealth concept. The pure concept of wealth is really simple. It's only attribute is possession.."

From here FOFOA feels compelled to discuss 'value', and gold's value: 'tradeable wealth' because everyone in the world places the same value on it.

What he doesn't mention here, but uses extensively throughout the rest of the essay is the notion that value is defined and shared by a cohesive social group. The notion of 'tribe' is foundational: "Since the beginning of time, man has been exploring and discovering the advantages of tribal life." If 'money is credit', credit only makes sense in the context of 'tribal credibility' or 'civic credibility' or 'national credibility'.

Banks don't lend 'things', says FOFOA. "...Get over this idea that banks need to have something to lend. This is the faulty premise: that banks lend something to the borrower. They do not. The borrower already has the credibility, the credit, and the banks are simply facilitating the exercise of that credit so that it can be used in transactions,..."

This allows FOFOA to make what might be a very controversial claim. I'll paraphrase FOFOA: old standards produce wars. FOFOA quotes FOA to make this point: "...tribal life and the human nature that comes with it ,,,,,,,, will not allow any money system to "completely" destroy the wealth of a good portion of society. Even if everyone is plainly shown that they are going to lose something ,,,,,,they would still opt for the good of the overall tribe. This is why we return,,,, time and again to fiat monetary systems. In the few examples where a gold system brings the harsh reality of loses to bear on a nation,,,,,, usually war is the result. Not a good outcome."

Paul wrote:what is money does not prevent or cause wars.
it is just the debt.

I've been looking into the work of David Graeber. He has written a book called 'Debt: the first 5000 years'. In the book, he turns the standard microeconomic evolution of money on its head. He points out that 'barter' has never been found being used as a primary means of managing debt in an 'undeveloped' culture. Thus, the idea that societies invented 'money' to replace clumsy 'barter' is groundless.

This then raises the question, why was money invented? Prof. Graeber suggests it has to do with military force; its creation and maintenance. Graeber posits that people 5000 years ago had fully formed ideas about how to handle debt, but they were informal. Their ideas about debt were based on family, friendship or neighbor relationship, stored in memory and credited via gestures, words and ritual. To prove this, he points out that the language of debt has a lot of supernatural aspects. Thus, a bachelor might give his intended wife's family three brass bars as part of the marriage ritual, but the '3 bars' played no part of an 'accounting system'. Rents and interest as 'concepts' work fine, but the level of 'force' behind these debt arrangements was very low. This low force level remains a goal for modern family relationships.

Graeber wants to convince his readers that money was invented to facilitate the creation of military force. Specifically, he points out that 'coins' appear at the same time as 'armies'. Coins embody a clever plan. First, you give soldiers stamped metal tokens as pay. At the same time, you demand your 'subjects' pay their taxes in the same stamped metal tokens. The only way for the 'subjects' to get approved tokens is by providing goods or services to soldiers. This allows the army to function with at least a modicum of collaboration from whoever is nearby. If returned tokens don't arrive on time, have the army collect them.

To illustrate Graeber's ideas, I've recreated the familiar 'Unit of Account' (UoA, 'Medium of Exchange' (MoE) and 'Store of Value' (SoV) diagram. What is new is that I've split the three poles into various ways of giving each form.

Another: (Thoughts)The Inside Story on the Gold-for-Oil Deal that could Rock the World's Financial Centers
Also called "The gold trail", is where FOFOA (Friend of Friend of "Another") found his inspiration.

I came across this post which asserts that wealth cannot be monetized. Wealth can be estimated in terms of relationships one can depend on. Money is used to assemble a setting that fosters those relationships. Fostering relationships is all it can do (what ever that means).
fhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-03/guest ... ing-wealth

"Given the limits of the conventional model of wealth, the question naturally arises: what if we defined wealth more by what cannot be bought rather than by what can be bought? Another way of making the distinction is to ask: what has been commoditized/globalized such that any person with money anywhere on the planet can buy it? What cannot be commoditized because it is intrinsically inaccessible to commodification?"

Just as an update, I currently read Martin Armstrong on a weekly basis. I haven't checked on FOFOA for months. FOFOA's moneyness question was a good one, though.

The Tickerguy argument actually is borrowed from the macro-economy textbook example of the classical IS-LM model. The model has its limitations and considers several variables as exogeneous where they are interrelated.

The model does explain most of the more 'obvious' mutual influences between the money supply (the "LM" curve) and the "IS" curve, relating 'investments' and 'savings" to consumption. I don't quite agree with the conclusions drawn in that posting.

From 'Look what the cat dragged in' by Tickerguy:http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228961
"The point of monetary reform, if we're serious about it, should be to reach the state where for each dollar of credit emitted one dollar of previously-earned economic surplus is impounded. As the credit is paid down that economic surplus is released. The privilege inherent in creation of new money thus resides solely in the sovereign as does the benefit of same; this is the "quid pro quo" for providing the legal framework and stability without which we are forced to resolve disputes with six-shooters at high noon instead of lawyers and courtrooms.

At its core this problem comes down to the definition of "M" in the classical economic equation "MV = PQ." "M" is contemplated as money but in fact it is moneyness; that is, money + credit. Those who argue otherwise yet have a credit card in their wallet are either intellectually deficient or intentionally misleading the public. Neither is acceptable and likewise it is not acceptable to design a system that actively removes moneyness from the system as tangible economic activity grows."

Gwyde asserts the MV=PQ model is based on ISLM (Investment Saving - Liquidity Preference Money supply), and that seems a fair conclusion.

ISLM itself is a mathematical interpretation of Keynes' book 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.' While I find these algebra models a comfortable vernacular to converse in, they tend to raise more questions than they answer. Still, I have to admit continuing to hope algebra plays a role in practical economics.